Media FAQ

A few weeks ago the TV trade magazine Broadcast reported that BBC factual programme making was in crisis - especially in London - with too few new commissions and plummeting morale. The BBC responded, saying the picture was mixed and that some people were always liable to worry at times of change. In fact the situation is worse than that; the erstwhile head of BBC factual and learning, John Willis, describes it as a "perfect storm".

The immediate problems arise from the introduction of higher regional quotas, a moratorium on commissioning while the implications of the reduced licence fee are digested, and the "window of creative competition", which reduces the guarantees on in-house production to allow independent producers the chance to win more business.

Factual departments have been hit especially hard and have already shed some 400 jobs - 20% of the total - only to find that the number of people on "downtime" (in other words waiting to start their next job, in general development or just hoping something comes along) rising fast. Last week it stood at more than 120. This is simply not sustainable and another major round of redundancies must surely follow.

Surely, I can hear you say, the BBC is overstaffed - the more so since their favourite DG, Greg Dyke, gave them all permanent contracts and pensions - and must adjust to straightened times? Perhaps it is, but more worrying is the apparent evaporation of creativity. You know you are in trouble when four talented and experienced factual/documentary executive producers are hoping that a new series of Dog Borstal for BBC3 will save their bacon.

But this crisis of creative leadership and ambition has its roots in two almost certainly unintended consequences of the way John Birt's famous "internal market" has come to operate. First there is the almost unconstrained power of the channel controllers and the commissioners. The original idea was to separate responsibility for understanding and meeting the needs of the audience from responsibility for devising the programmes. And broadly it did.

But over time the controllers have assumed greater authority over what gets commissioned, with producers reduced to modern serfs doing their bidding. Throw into the mix the BBC's tendency to cultish behaviour and you can see why the current fashion that all things should be "entertaining" appears, to producers at least, to have significantly reduced demand for programmes that are more serious or challenging.

What is more, the way the production departments are expected to function - as mini businesses - predisposes them, as any business would, to seek out commissions for low-risk, high-volume, returnable series. In other words the underlying economics of the internal market make Dog Borstal (high volume, low risk) much more attractive than The Secret Policeman (very high risk and very low volume - only one show). This is classic commercial behaviour of the sort so common in the independent production sector.

But is it what we need BBC in-house production to specialise in or focus on? If it cannot aim high creatively and, without being profligate, behave in ways that commercial competitors cannot, then ultimately there will be no point in it continuing to exist.

Who will get Neighbours?

The Neighbours contract is up for renewal - and it is not going well for the BBC. Under the old deal the BBC paid around £25,000 for each episode of the Aussie soap, which has, over the years, been good business. Realising it would have to pay more for any new deal, the BBC offered around £70,000 an episode and planned to spin the show out on to BBC3 - presumably to justify the cost (although heaven knows how it would have fitted in to BBC3's remit).

But Fremantle, owner of the rights, has rejected the BBC's offer and gone to the market, where it is rumoured to be seeking a six-figure sum. ITV is interested and so is Five, for whom the show could be a lifesaver given its poor current showing. What is more, Five is owned by RTL, which also owns, wait for it, Fremantle.

In any event it seems highly unlikely that the corporation will be left trying to explain why it spent so much licence-payers' cash on a relatively low-rent Australian import.